Recently the issue of Irish men serving with the British Army came up. The context was Irish soldiers in World War 1. True we needed to look and figure out what that means in 2010 for republicans. Its fair to say we can remember their deaths with sadness while opposing the foreign army that slaughtered them and the craven men who recruited them to their deaths. Today that craven attitude is still on show. The Irish Times has an article which glorifies a British regiment called the "Micks" and postively recommends signing up and heading out to Afghanistan.
Why Irish men join I dont know but they are not the focus of my ire. Instead its more apt to challenge those who push such recruitment in Ireland and to persuade them that such misguided efforts are not in anyway reconciliatory or evidence of a maturing relationship between Ireland and Britain.
So who are the Micks. Its a regiment that has a wolfhound, gets shamrock from a royal and has twee songs about Oirland and and which did two tours of occupation in Fermanagh and East Tyrone.
Its sad to see Irish men join a foreign army to play paddy.
Its sad to see Irish men join a foreign army that has brutalised communities here.
But its sickening to see a paper like the Irish Times pushing recruitment to such an outfit. When those poor eejits loose legs, arms, their sight, or even their lives out in Afghanistan the Irish Times wont be helping them or their surviving families. They wont give a damn.
We will move on from the conflict in the north. We will build better relationships with Britain but that does not mean we need to become a supine recruiting pool for their foreign adventures so young Irish men can die in Kandahar.
Was this article a misguided attempt at reconcillation or the Irish Times London correspondent proving his trust-worthiness and loyalty?
People should be in no dount that Republicans are capable of moving out of their comfort zone to build trust and new relationships. Nobody has worked harder than Republicans at doing this. Certainly not the preaching Dublin media. But building genuine relationships and deep trust cannot be built by toady demonstrations of inoffensiveness. That just belittles us and demeans us as a nation.
Be in no doubt that there will be a relentless push by interests such as Henessy or others with Harris like views on the north to push Britishness into every facet of the island as the process of reunification continues. This will be done so as to supposedly make the south a warm house for unionists.
Ultimmately it will fail because the union is fraying not least in Scotland and Wales.
It will fail because as long as Sinn Fein is leading the reapprochement with Irish unionists in the north it will be able to resist the push of sycophants in the south who would like to abandon every single aspect of Irish identity in a misguided attempt at reconciliation.
Mark Henessy and the Irish Times may think they are contributing to the development of new relationships but tipping the hat was tried before and it didnt work. Reconiliation will be built as equals not by sending our young to die in foreign wars.
Oh and Mark why dont you join up and head out to Afghanistan yourself.
Nah didnt think you would but you'll happily see loads of Irish lads go there.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
How monolithic is Irish politics really?
Despite an overwhelming campaign by the Yes side in Lisbon 2 with every type of trick, lie and inducement played by the Yes side 32.9 % of voter choose not to listen to their betters and still voted no.
Referendums have often hinted at a strange dislocation or dissatisfaction amongst the Irish electorate. Frequently despite a unified establishment call for one result a large cohort, often 30-35% would not bend the knee and do as it was told. Effectively saying to establishment parties that we do not trust you on matters of social policy, we do not trust your guarantees on Europe and further integration. Its difficult to know how much to read into these referendum results due to the single focus associated with referendums but sure might as well give it a go.
Repeatedly in referendum after referendum a block of 30-35% voters separate from the herd, but not in every referendum. This is not a contrarian vote but a reasoned choice.
The abortion referendum, the divorce referendum and every Euro referendum most especially all pointed to a large segment of voters who would not toe the line automatically - but were not necessarily a cohesive group. However it did point up that Irish politics is not as a monolithic as some might imagine - yet election after election seemed to prove otherwise. On social issues and distant issues such as europe the left had some traction but on the immediate issues of economic policy and governance we and other left seemed to suffer or at the least not fully exploit the possibilities inherent in such a large voter block.
Consider the Divorce referendum of 86 - Areas in Dublin with Workers Party representation had a higher Yes vote than elsewhere. 36% voted yes across the state.
Look at Dublin North East where Pat McCartan of the Workers Party won a seat in 1987 , 51% voted Yes to the Divorce Referendum, 15% more than the state average (36%). Right across every area of the constituency the Yes vote was higher than the national average. Yet this was not a Dublin/Urban phenomenon. Rural constituencies also had very significant voter blocks who voted Yes (and this in many constituencies were choice was limited to FF and FG with no other options available). Who knows how they would have voted otherwise.
Where did it pass Dublin North, Dublin NE, Dublin South, Dublin south east, Dublin south west,Dun laoighaire,The Workers' party held seats in half of those constituencies (DNE, DSW,DunLao) in 1989. In the other three Dublin North, Dublin NE and Dublin SE - Sinn Fein would soon be fighting for seats save Dublin North where the Socialist Party was particularly strong.
Looking at Lisbon 1 you see the same pattern. Where were the big No votres - Cavan Monaghan, Cork North Central, both Donegals, in several Dublin areas constituencies but many voted yes as well. Kerry North, Louth, Mayo, Meath West, Waterford/Wexford. All areas where Sinn Fein have either already established themselves solidly or were building well.
Lisbon 1 helped give a clear view of who these dissenting voters were. In the most affluent constituencies of Dublin, such as Dun Laoghaire, where even a modest home was running at €1 million 60% or more voted for the treaty. In working class areas of the city, it was the no vote which scored in excess of 60%. Brouard and Tiberj (2006) show that precisely the same division between rich and poor, or the skilled and unskilled, can be discerned in the French 2005 vote.
In Ireland the results were explained as follows - rich with a nice house meant well educated meant you were smart enough to vote yes while working class (urban or rural) meant you lacked the wit to realise Yes was the way to go so better give the poor cráturs another chance with Lisbon 2.
Without trying to extend this too far look at an area like Kildare where neither SF nor Workers Party made a breakthrough, instead there it is indeed monolithic politics. Looking at the 1981 election you see the names McCreevy, Stagg, Durkan, Power and Dukes. Those names continue with occasional swaps and some substitutions finally up until 2007. The same political menu on offer for 30 years. Kildare North voted strongly for Lisbon 1, while Kildare south just about rejected it with 51%. Kildare south was one of the few constituencies in the south without a SF candidate in the 2007 elections. One candidate in the 2009 locals did a solid job in building the vote in whats a difficult constituency for progressive parties. Yet even in such a difficult location political strength is being built.
There would appear to be at the least a rough rule of thumb whereby referendums can demonstrate the resonance a political party has with its local constituents and the prospects it has for building further electoral strength by indicating where voters are registering significant distrust of establishment parties on issues of sovereignty or social policy.
In the '86 Divorce referendum The Workers party helped deliver yes votes in several areas , the other Yes vote constituencies would all prove fertile for SF or Socialist parties. In Lisbon 1 strong no votes were achieved in areas with Sinn Fein TDs or with strong Sinn Fein presences.
Irish politics can appear monolithic with FF and FG swapping time and time again. But the results of many referendums in the south have shown the existence of a large voter block ready to defy the monolithic parties and follow the lead of parties with more progressive and radical agendas.
Even without the chaos of financial collapse it could be argued that there was sufficient room for political growth over the years for a progressive party to wean large sections of the electorate away from Fianna Fail and Fine Gael.
It could be argued that Irish politics was not as monolithic as we might have imagined. Yet despite the evidence from referendums that a large block of voters, in some areas quite a significant no. were willing to disregard received wisdom and choose their own course, somehow or other those votes didnt translate into electoral gains.
What stopped the centralisation of these dissenting voters around a progressive party? While the reasons for voting against the majority differs from referendum and within each referendum it does appear that there is quite a large block of voters out there who are willing to stand on the same side as parties like SF.
Today in 2010, after Lisbon 1, we still have clear evidence that a large group of voters are willing to dissent from the received wisdom. The addition of a financial crisis makes the opportunity to coalesce those votes all the more doable.
How should Sinn Fein best do this? The last party to do try to achieve this realignment was the Workers' Party but it was not able to complete that realignment due to a no. of reasons. It collapsed just as it may have been on the verge of staring that realignment. The Fianna Fail working class vote has dropped from its high of 45% in 1969 to a low of 32% in 1997. Yet it went back up to 47% of working class votes in 2002. The opportunity to wrest working class votes away from FF had passed... but not for long.
That opportunity is back with a vengeance. Sinn Fein has a great chance to now take a large segment of the working class vote away from FF permanently. And while I wish the SP, Labour, WP etc. well I'd rather that SF were the party that brings together this sizable dissenting vote and gives it cohesiveness and consistency.
Once this crisis ends then there might not be a period of such flux for another decade.
Democracy by court decree
There is something bad wrong in a state when you have to go to court to force a Govt. to honour the principle of democratic representation. Donegal is getting battered by recession, the ESRI is talking about the return of large scale emigration and instead of doing something useful and acting like adults the Fianna Fail-Green govt. has its head in the sand ostrich like hiding from the voters.
Pearse Doherty has welcomed the setting of a date for a hearing of his case against the Government over its failure to hold the Donegal South West by-election. The case has scheduled for listing on 18th October with a view to having the case heard that week subject to the court’s availability.
However Senator Doherty said the Government’s decision to fight the case has delayed the by-election even further and if they had any sense of decency they would have used the opportunity today to set a date for an election rather than a court case.
Speaking at the High Court today Senator Doherty said:
“While I welcome the setting of a date for listing and hope the case will be heard during the week of October 18th however the Government must be condemned for fighting this case which will delay the by-election even further.
“If the Government had any sense of decency it would have used the opportunity today to set a date for an election rather than a court case.
“They are attempting to defend the indefensible and the fact that they have come to the high court to defend this is an indictment on their record and a testament of their fear of facing the electorate.
“This is an arrogant excuse for a Government which is more interested in its own fate than it is in the democratic rights of the citizens of this state.
“It has continually failed the people of my constituency and has arrogantly left them under represented for more than a year at a time when a third of the workforce is unemployed, when our general hospital is facing ward closures and when some of our community hospitals are facing full closure.
“This whole episode highlights the urgent need for a reform of the system of dealing with Dáil vacancies as they arise.”
Donegal By-election
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Remembering the Past - Enigmatic Robert Emmet
On July 23rd 1803 Robert Emmet, with other United Irish men, launched an ill-fated rebellion in the streets of Dublin. This, with other local Irish rebellions, would result in the remilitarisation of Ireland and demonstrate that Ireland would never be anything other than an occupied colony - act of union or no.
A nice side note on the act of union was that it took two runs to get it onto the books. The first vote was defeated but seeing as how they didnt like the result they tried again and eventually succeeded. Whereas the first attempt had been defeated in the Irish House of Commons by 109 votes against to 104 for, the second vote in 1800 produced a result of 158 to 115. Sounds a bit like another modern treaty of union.
In the irish democrat site Historian Ruán O’Donnell assessed the real significance of one of Ireland’s most iconic and misunderstood national heroes, the United Irishman Robert Emmet, who was executed over 200 years ago in the wake of the failure of the 1803 rising :
JULY 2003 marks the anniversary of the rising with which Robert Emmet is widely associated. Emmet’s personal fame, fanned by his rousing ‘speech from the dock’, has ensured a lasting place in the folk memory of Ireland and he was unquestionably the premier nationalist hero figure of the 19th century.
A nice side note on the act of union was that it took two runs to get it onto the books. The first vote was defeated but seeing as how they didnt like the result they tried again and eventually succeeded. Whereas the first attempt had been defeated in the Irish House of Commons by 109 votes against to 104 for, the second vote in 1800 produced a result of 158 to 115. Sounds a bit like another modern treaty of union.
In the irish democrat site Historian Ruán O’Donnell assessed the real significance of one of Ireland’s most iconic and misunderstood national heroes, the United Irishman Robert Emmet, who was executed over 200 years ago in the wake of the failure of the 1803 rising :
JULY 2003 marks the anniversary of the rising with which Robert Emmet is widely associated. Emmet’s personal fame, fanned by his rousing ‘speech from the dock’, has ensured a lasting place in the folk memory of Ireland and he was unquestionably the premier nationalist hero figure of the 19th century.
A corollary of this ascendancy, however, has been the eclipsing of many important United Irishmen who fought and died in 1803, not to mention those who escaped detection.
Emmet remains something of an enigma 200 years after his execution in Dublin for high treason. His claim to prominence in the complex historiography of Ireland rests in the first instance from his leadership of the failed rising of 23 July 1803.
This attempt to remove Ireland from the United Kingdom by force of arms was far more serious than the government admitted. Persistent calls for a parliamentary enquiry were strenuously resisted as this would have revealed that the rising had surprised the Dublin Castle regime and exposed the weakness of British security. Britain was then in the grip of an invasion scare as the interminable war against France showed no signs of favourable resolution.
The rising, therefore, undermined the Act of Union which, from 1 January 1801, had incorporated Ireland into the UK. Emmet’s role in re-cementing the United Irish-French alliance had not been anticipated and was poorly understood at the time of his death in September 1803.
Emmet’s father was the State Physician of Ireland, and, ironically, the man responsible for the health of King George III in the unlikely event of a royal visit to Dublin.
The Emmets were wealthy and the future revolutionary graduated with ease from the socially elite academies of the capital, where he was born in 1778, to Trinity College, aged fifteen. Robert Emmet’s youth coincided with the rise of the reform movement in Ireland when pro-American ‘patriotism’ gripped his family.
By December 1796 a French invasion fleet lay off Cork and Emmet was a United Irishman pledged to establish an independent Irish republic with their assistance.
His elder brother, Thomas Addis Emmet, was a member of the organisation’s executive directory from 1797 but had played a key role in shaping its ideology from its inception in six years previously.
Although poorly documented, the younger Emmet’s seditious activities in Trinity resulted in de facto expulsion in April 1798 but he remained in situ when the ‘Great Rebellion’ erupted the following month.
What is known of Emmet’s actions in 1798 points to his close workings with the rump leadership built around Lord Edward Fitzgerald’s highly influential military committee. This coterie was, for all intents and purposes, the Dublin based headquarters of the United Irishmen. Its members included Philip Long, surgeon Thomas Wright, Walter Cox and others who connected the conspiracies of the United Irishmen in the mid-1790s to the rising of 1803.
Robert Emmet advanced to the executive directory in January 1799 by which time several of the original incumbents had been executed and many others jailed. Consequently, the August 1800 arrival of an emissary warning of concern in Paris as to the commitment of the United Irishmen disposed Emmet to accompany Malachy Delaney on a mission to brief Napoleon Bonaparte.
He first travelled to Fort George in Scotland to meet the high-ranking United Irishmen interned there before sailing from Yarmouth to Hamburg. General P F C Augureau received the fiery Emmet/ Delaney petition and forwarded it to Bonaparte.
Arrangements were made to receive the Irish plenipotentiaries in Paris. Foreign minister Tallyrand introduced them to the staff officers drawing up plans for an Irish invasion and Emmet later met Napoleon.
Peace overtures from Britain, however, temporarily stalled these preparations and from March 1802 the treaty signed at Amiens postponed French assistance. Thus thwarted, Emmet waited for the resumption of war by touring centres of Irish emitters on the continent.
He returned to Dublin in October 1802 and assumed the position of chief military strategist of the United Irishmen. Associates arrived secretly from France and England to reactivate dormant cadres ahead of the predicted resumption of the Anglo-French War during the spring.
Co-operation was initially envisaged with British based republicans led by colonel Edward Marcus Despard and this had been discussed in Paris and London in talks attended by Philip Long and William Dowdall.
Any chance of simultaneous strikes was quashed by Despard’s arrest in November 1802, although Dowdall and other militants based in Britain realigned with Emmet.
The conspirators hired numerous premises in Dublin where war material was manufactured and stored. Sophisticated improvised ordnance such as rockets and mines were to be used against the garrison of the capital during the critical mobilisation phase.
This surprise onslaught was to be seconded by an influx of rebels from counties Kildare, Wicklow and Meath. Emmet believed that capturing or isolating the executive would gravely hinder its ability to repel a large-scale French invasion in the provinces.
Supporting uprisings were intended to assist the advance of the French in what was essentially a more efficient reworking of the strategy of 1798.
The majority of United Irish veterans in contact with Emmet’s circle had undertaken to fight alongside the French, or without foreign assistance, if provided with modern weaponry. Failure to deliver either the French or muskets, therefore, was the fatal flow of the rising of 1803.
This was not intentional as the hand of the leadership was forced by the accidental destruction of the Patrick Street depot when loose powder ignited on 16 July 1803. Fearing that all the crucial dumps were in danger of discovery, Emmet unwisely backed those who argued for an immediate insurrection in the hope that the French would sail to their aid without delay.
The date was fixed for 23 July with no provision for cancellation and insufficient time to acknowledge the concerns of regional leaders. Thomas Russell, James Hope, William Hamilton and other senior long standing radicals went to Ulster to warn their allies, while Dublin residents such as Miles Byrne and Arthur Devlin primed their fellow Leinster men.
Their reception was decidedly uneven and exceptionally so when the moment of truth arrived. It must be presumed that the whole effort would have been cancelled had Emmet realised sufficient forces to capture Belfast, Downpatrick and Ballymena would not be fielded on the 23rd.
The first wave of attacks in Dublin was entrusted to cells of heavily-armed men who gathering in private houses close to their objectives. The Castle, Island Bridge artillery barracks, the Pigeon House and other complexes were earmarked for assault. These sudden strikes were to be assisted by around 2,000 auxiliaries hidden in Costigan’s distillery on Thomas Street.
The reserve consisted of thousands of rank and file followers from Kildare and Dublin who were told to mass in Thomas Street to await final instructions at 6.00 pm. A series of ill-disciplined attacks on army officers, magistrates and loyalists, however, threatened to alert the government in the early evening.
Remarkably, misunderstandings between the civil and military command in the capital left Dublin more vulnerable than anyone realised. No troops were deployed. Nevertheless, by 9.00 pm Emmet decided to dismiss rebel units blocking the suburban roads and launched a solitary signal rocket to countermand his previous orders to rise.
The vast majority melted away unchallenged. Emmet then hastily read extracts from the Proclamation of the Provisional Government to ensure that those who had already turned out would be treated as political prisoners if captured.
He then headed a feint on the Castle with a view to bringing his exposed junior associates into the Dublin mountains. The veteran groups were deliberately not deployed and in their stead were low-level activists, unfamiliar with Emmet’s rank and authority.
He and the senior officers present very quickly abandoned Thomas Street for Rathfarnham and the mountains beyond.
Several hundred organised rebels, however, refused to disperse without a fight and confronted companies of the 21st regiment in three linked and bloody skirmishes. Soldiers inflicted far more casualties than they sustained but, nonetheless, retreated to barracks where they remained until the danger had passed.
The rising of 1803 petered out in the capital long before the garrison flooded onto the streets to restore order. Even then, the military response was chaotic and undertaken without specific orders from CIC lieutenant-general, Henry Edward Fox. Rebel movements occurred in several counties, most notably Kildare (where two villages were captured), Antrim and Down but very little of the potential of the United Irishmen was manifested in 1803.
Stunned by the post-Union strength of the United Irishmen, the government shouldered the political embarrassment and considerable expense of remilitarising Ireland. Contrary to the ostensible objective of Union, the country remained (and to a degree remains in the North) a garrisoned colonial entity rather than an equal member of the United Kingdom.
Thomas Russell was one of the more prominent fatalities in the round of judicial executions which followed but over thirty men perished in the treason trails of the Special Commissions.
Emmet, captured in Harold’s Cross on 25 August, refused to make terms and was executed in Thomas Street on 20 September.
Thousands of his comrades then languished in the jails, provosts and prison tenders of the thirty-two counties where many were held until the spring of 1806 when the more liberal incoming government of Charles James Fox restored habeas corpus.
Emmet was already a hero-martyr and his demand to be vindicated by the sole means of Ireland taking its place ‘amongst the nations of the Earth’ has resonated with periodic vigour ever since. His name, for this reason alone, will be associated with the final resolution of the national question in Ireland.
Professor Ruán O’Donnell is head of the history dept. at the University of Limerick He has published a two volume biographical study of Emmet.
Emmet remains something of an enigma 200 years after his execution in Dublin for high treason. His claim to prominence in the complex historiography of Ireland rests in the first instance from his leadership of the failed rising of 23 July 1803.
This attempt to remove Ireland from the United Kingdom by force of arms was far more serious than the government admitted. Persistent calls for a parliamentary enquiry were strenuously resisted as this would have revealed that the rising had surprised the Dublin Castle regime and exposed the weakness of British security. Britain was then in the grip of an invasion scare as the interminable war against France showed no signs of favourable resolution.
The rising, therefore, undermined the Act of Union which, from 1 January 1801, had incorporated Ireland into the UK. Emmet’s role in re-cementing the United Irish-French alliance had not been anticipated and was poorly understood at the time of his death in September 1803.
Emmet’s father was the State Physician of Ireland, and, ironically, the man responsible for the health of King George III in the unlikely event of a royal visit to Dublin.
The Emmets were wealthy and the future revolutionary graduated with ease from the socially elite academies of the capital, where he was born in 1778, to Trinity College, aged fifteen. Robert Emmet’s youth coincided with the rise of the reform movement in Ireland when pro-American ‘patriotism’ gripped his family.
By December 1796 a French invasion fleet lay off Cork and Emmet was a United Irishman pledged to establish an independent Irish republic with their assistance.
His elder brother, Thomas Addis Emmet, was a member of the organisation’s executive directory from 1797 but had played a key role in shaping its ideology from its inception in six years previously.
Although poorly documented, the younger Emmet’s seditious activities in Trinity resulted in de facto expulsion in April 1798 but he remained in situ when the ‘Great Rebellion’ erupted the following month.
What is known of Emmet’s actions in 1798 points to his close workings with the rump leadership built around Lord Edward Fitzgerald’s highly influential military committee. This coterie was, for all intents and purposes, the Dublin based headquarters of the United Irishmen. Its members included Philip Long, surgeon Thomas Wright, Walter Cox and others who connected the conspiracies of the United Irishmen in the mid-1790s to the rising of 1803.
Robert Emmet advanced to the executive directory in January 1799 by which time several of the original incumbents had been executed and many others jailed. Consequently, the August 1800 arrival of an emissary warning of concern in Paris as to the commitment of the United Irishmen disposed Emmet to accompany Malachy Delaney on a mission to brief Napoleon Bonaparte.
He first travelled to Fort George in Scotland to meet the high-ranking United Irishmen interned there before sailing from Yarmouth to Hamburg. General P F C Augureau received the fiery Emmet/ Delaney petition and forwarded it to Bonaparte.
Arrangements were made to receive the Irish plenipotentiaries in Paris. Foreign minister Tallyrand introduced them to the staff officers drawing up plans for an Irish invasion and Emmet later met Napoleon.
Peace overtures from Britain, however, temporarily stalled these preparations and from March 1802 the treaty signed at Amiens postponed French assistance. Thus thwarted, Emmet waited for the resumption of war by touring centres of Irish emitters on the continent.
He returned to Dublin in October 1802 and assumed the position of chief military strategist of the United Irishmen. Associates arrived secretly from France and England to reactivate dormant cadres ahead of the predicted resumption of the Anglo-French War during the spring.
Co-operation was initially envisaged with British based republicans led by colonel Edward Marcus Despard and this had been discussed in Paris and London in talks attended by Philip Long and William Dowdall.
Any chance of simultaneous strikes was quashed by Despard’s arrest in November 1802, although Dowdall and other militants based in Britain realigned with Emmet.
The conspirators hired numerous premises in Dublin where war material was manufactured and stored. Sophisticated improvised ordnance such as rockets and mines were to be used against the garrison of the capital during the critical mobilisation phase.
This surprise onslaught was to be seconded by an influx of rebels from counties Kildare, Wicklow and Meath. Emmet believed that capturing or isolating the executive would gravely hinder its ability to repel a large-scale French invasion in the provinces.
Supporting uprisings were intended to assist the advance of the French in what was essentially a more efficient reworking of the strategy of 1798.
The majority of United Irish veterans in contact with Emmet’s circle had undertaken to fight alongside the French, or without foreign assistance, if provided with modern weaponry. Failure to deliver either the French or muskets, therefore, was the fatal flow of the rising of 1803.
This was not intentional as the hand of the leadership was forced by the accidental destruction of the Patrick Street depot when loose powder ignited on 16 July 1803. Fearing that all the crucial dumps were in danger of discovery, Emmet unwisely backed those who argued for an immediate insurrection in the hope that the French would sail to their aid without delay.
The date was fixed for 23 July with no provision for cancellation and insufficient time to acknowledge the concerns of regional leaders. Thomas Russell, James Hope, William Hamilton and other senior long standing radicals went to Ulster to warn their allies, while Dublin residents such as Miles Byrne and Arthur Devlin primed their fellow Leinster men.
Their reception was decidedly uneven and exceptionally so when the moment of truth arrived. It must be presumed that the whole effort would have been cancelled had Emmet realised sufficient forces to capture Belfast, Downpatrick and Ballymena would not be fielded on the 23rd.
The first wave of attacks in Dublin was entrusted to cells of heavily-armed men who gathering in private houses close to their objectives. The Castle, Island Bridge artillery barracks, the Pigeon House and other complexes were earmarked for assault. These sudden strikes were to be assisted by around 2,000 auxiliaries hidden in Costigan’s distillery on Thomas Street.
The reserve consisted of thousands of rank and file followers from Kildare and Dublin who were told to mass in Thomas Street to await final instructions at 6.00 pm. A series of ill-disciplined attacks on army officers, magistrates and loyalists, however, threatened to alert the government in the early evening.
Remarkably, misunderstandings between the civil and military command in the capital left Dublin more vulnerable than anyone realised. No troops were deployed. Nevertheless, by 9.00 pm Emmet decided to dismiss rebel units blocking the suburban roads and launched a solitary signal rocket to countermand his previous orders to rise.
The vast majority melted away unchallenged. Emmet then hastily read extracts from the Proclamation of the Provisional Government to ensure that those who had already turned out would be treated as political prisoners if captured.
He then headed a feint on the Castle with a view to bringing his exposed junior associates into the Dublin mountains. The veteran groups were deliberately not deployed and in their stead were low-level activists, unfamiliar with Emmet’s rank and authority.
He and the senior officers present very quickly abandoned Thomas Street for Rathfarnham and the mountains beyond.
Several hundred organised rebels, however, refused to disperse without a fight and confronted companies of the 21st regiment in three linked and bloody skirmishes. Soldiers inflicted far more casualties than they sustained but, nonetheless, retreated to barracks where they remained until the danger had passed.
The rising of 1803 petered out in the capital long before the garrison flooded onto the streets to restore order. Even then, the military response was chaotic and undertaken without specific orders from CIC lieutenant-general, Henry Edward Fox. Rebel movements occurred in several counties, most notably Kildare (where two villages were captured), Antrim and Down but very little of the potential of the United Irishmen was manifested in 1803.
Stunned by the post-Union strength of the United Irishmen, the government shouldered the political embarrassment and considerable expense of remilitarising Ireland. Contrary to the ostensible objective of Union, the country remained (and to a degree remains in the North) a garrisoned colonial entity rather than an equal member of the United Kingdom.
Thomas Russell was one of the more prominent fatalities in the round of judicial executions which followed but over thirty men perished in the treason trails of the Special Commissions.
Emmet, captured in Harold’s Cross on 25 August, refused to make terms and was executed in Thomas Street on 20 September.
Thousands of his comrades then languished in the jails, provosts and prison tenders of the thirty-two counties where many were held until the spring of 1806 when the more liberal incoming government of Charles James Fox restored habeas corpus.
Emmet was already a hero-martyr and his demand to be vindicated by the sole means of Ireland taking its place ‘amongst the nations of the Earth’ has resonated with periodic vigour ever since. His name, for this reason alone, will be associated with the final resolution of the national question in Ireland.
Professor Ruán O’Donnell is head of the history dept. at the University of Limerick He has published a two volume biographical study of Emmet.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Rape charge for Arab posing as a Jew
Found this piece and think it just seems to sum up so much that is wrong with Isreal and its attitude to the arab population. Surely what difference does it make if somebody is a Jew or an Arab.
This is taken from the Jeruselm Post.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=182113
-----------------------------------------------
Court rules consensual sex between Jewish woman and Arab constitutes rape.
Jerusalem District Court ruled that consensual sex between a Jewish woman and an Arab posing as a Jew constituted rape.
On Monday, the court sentenced Sabbar Kashur, 30, an Arab from Jerusalem, to 18 months in prison as part of a plea bargain for rape by deception.
Kashur met a Jewish woman in downtown Jerusalem in 2008 and introduced himself as a Jewish bachelor seeking a serious relationship, the indictment said, according to media reports. The couple then went to a nearby building and had consensual sexual intercourse; Kashur then left.
The woman filed a complaint after realizing that Kashur was not Jewish.
The court ruled that the consent for sex was obtained under false pretenses.
"If she hadn't thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated," the judges wrote
This is taken from the Jeruselm Post.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=182113
-----------------------------------------------
Court rules consensual sex between Jewish woman and Arab constitutes rape.
Jerusalem District Court ruled that consensual sex between a Jewish woman and an Arab posing as a Jew constituted rape.
On Monday, the court sentenced Sabbar Kashur, 30, an Arab from Jerusalem, to 18 months in prison as part of a plea bargain for rape by deception.
Kashur met a Jewish woman in downtown Jerusalem in 2008 and introduced himself as a Jewish bachelor seeking a serious relationship, the indictment said, according to media reports. The couple then went to a nearby building and had consensual sexual intercourse; Kashur then left.
The woman filed a complaint after realizing that Kashur was not Jewish.
The court ruled that the consent for sex was obtained under false pretenses.
"If she hadn't thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated," the judges wrote
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Modern Childcare for a modern state.
For me Sinn Fein is about building a modern state in Ireland, replacing the half baked relics of failed partion with one state. But we are still a distance from a modern state , and thats not to focus on the record of the greasy fumblers governing us in the south, but instead to look at who is ruling us. Overwhelmingly they are men! Six out of every Seven TDs in Leinster house and there is four male for every female Seanadóir. The situation is actually lamentable with 14% of TDs being women, compared to the EU average of 27%.
Increasing the proportion of women in Leinster house, the seanaid and northern assembly would seem to be a fair proposition solely on the basis of having the legislative bodies reflect the gender divide. The imperative to do so is not solely based on notions of fairness though but the urgent need to improve the standard of governance and the responsiveness of govts. to the requirements of all its citizens.
The south has a national strategy for increasing women's participation in the legislative bodies. However it has its work cut out for it. At the current rate of increase it will take 370 years for the percentage of women in the Leinster house to reach 50%. Hardly good enough.
Noted economist Anne Sibert, and others, have already commented on how an increased percentage of women in financial circles could have mitigated the worst excesses of the financial bubble.
The other aspect of this is ensuring the responsiveness of the Govt. to the needs of its citizens. Legislative bodies overwhelmingly stacked with men might not be best suited for developing policy that considers how to create a women friendly society, in other words a modern society giving equal opportunity, a society that does not simply throw its hands in the air and say thats how its always been.
A good example of this carry on sure tis grand attitude is childcare. One of the stories of the Celtic Tiger (late of this parish) was the greatly increased participation of women, of all ages, in the workforce. Considering this was an increasing trend since the early 90s then it would be reasonable to expect that a suitable childcare policy would have been developed over the years such that a decade after the boom started we might have an affordable childcare system.
The OECD a few years back did a series of reports on the Kids and Careers balance . In 2003 Ireland was one of the countries covered. Even a decade after the boom started to take off it found that while married Irish mothers were at work in huge numbers single mothers were not. While up to 80% of single moms in Australia were working in Ireland it was half that. The buden of expensive childcare was denying these women the opportunity to build a career and was effectively forcing them into a benefits trap. For a Govt. that boasted so much of incentivising the independent
entrepreneurial spirit keeping single mothers out of the labour market through high childcare costs just didnt register as an issue. Instead childcare in southern Ireland was to be provided by the extended family if you couldnt afford the exorbitant costs of care.
Hardly a fair response from the govt. and as damningly typical of their short-sighted policies. France considers child care provision as not only a social policy but equally as an economic policy allowing greater labour force participation while making sure that the state (and companies) play there part in building a child friendly society. In a Europe faced with an imploding demographic such an approach makes sense.
In Ireland though its clearly not a concern for the old boys club. 7 years after the OECD pointed us out as failing in our provision of childcare support we still have cildcare costs that are far above the EU average, with Irish families spending 20% of their incomes on full-time crèche facilities compared with 12% of income for families in the rest of Europe.
2003 was the year the OECD pointed out our second rate childcare policies. It was also the year the Spire was finally topped off in Dublin. This was the symbol of a new and modern Ireland.
A much more fitting symbol would have been childcare system that was at least the equal of what our neighbours in Europe have.
How likely were the lads who thought the Spire a good idea to even consider that. A bit of different perspective would have made a difference. More women in the legislative bodies would have helped provide that perspective.
There is a new blog trying to give voice to that perspective and give a greater role to Irish women in politics. There is plenty of work to be done before that job is finished and I wish them well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)